Posted on 02/14/2007 3:56:18 AM PST by Tulsa Ramjet
Regards, Ivan
Everyone…I agree this report is flawed, but dump the Iran, Congo, Mexico etc comparisons. The report only includes ‘industrialised’ actions.
Judging by the list here ‘industrialised’ apparently means Europe and the US:
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6359363.stm)
Don't ask me why they couldn't manage to get enough data from those economic backwaters (!) Japan and Australia.
When the little kids come around and try to collect for UNICEF, I tell them the UN is filled with filled with communists and Nazis who barbecue small African children on spits. They looked shocked and don't know what to say.
The goofy lefty parents, however, go into cardiac arrest, throw little Johnny in the car and speed off at 60 MPH.
50% of 0 is 0.
Really!! Due to the way in which peoples earnings change over time the only reason this number would not be ~50% is that most elderly with grown children do not have large incomes.
Don't ask me why they couldn't manage to get enough data from those economic backwaters (!) Japan and Australia.
Politically incorrect results maybe?
Regarding Japan I haven't a clue but I have no reason to suspect Austrlia would be finish than either the US or UK. I'm just puzzled by its ommission.
PS - how did I manage to spell 'nation' as 'action'? Must be my hopeless upbringing!
" The bottom 2% in the US still live better than 90% of the global population "
That's probably wrong.
Bangs head on desk.
What do they want? That everyone lives in a home with income above the national average?
If only 15% of the children live in homes that are below the national average, I'd say that's pretty good.
Let's reword it: 85% of the children live in homes with incomes above 50% of the national median. Harder to criticise, isn't it?
I am not going to defend the report. But many on here need to read. Where are you getting third world countries.
"in the industrialised world "
They did not include third world countries. So attack the report where it deserves to be attacked. The use of irrelevant statistics and non measurable feel good ones.
I would say that anything associated with the United Nations reports the polar opposite of the correct findings. Looks like a continuation of the leftist conspiracy to discredit/destroy the USA and Great Britain! Why do we give those folks a penny? The UN should exist on donations, not government money! We are fools to support such vermin!
That must be why so many refugees are seen fleeing this country!! (end sarcasm)
Truthfully I have no clue either, however given the political criteria they were using, it seemed plausible.
I have amateur's interest in history and one of the things that is striking for most of history is the lack of fecundity of the truly wealthy throughout most of history.
Ok, it looks like about 3 of the posters here read the linked article.
One of the factors in the determination was "relationships." That discussion focused on the effect of single parent families. It noted that the US and the UK had the highest rate of single parents, which had a negative effect on the kids. In addition, the focus group is made up of a bunch of European nanny states -- life there isn't bad now . . . its the future that is dicey.
Sorry folks, whether the conclusion of the report is correct or not (its an entirely subjective matter), things like single parenthood and its having a negative impact on our kids makeup are true problems in this country. And the mass of the country just accepts it now as hunky-dory.
What a silly definition. Totally meaningless WRT their brainiac conclusions.
Whenever I read this drivel, it gets my blood boiling. It's not just the Congo or Iran. I've traveled to many nice places and I don't think they're anything so great either. Just ask the Jewish kids in France, for example. But more importantly, the only reason these "numbers" are what they are is because there is a certain element in our society here in America that are such horrible parents, the 5 or 6 kids they seem to have apiece (because other than getting their nails done, weaves, grilles, or whatever, all they know how to do is reproduce and of course they have time to do this because they don't work either) are skewing the stats.
This is how mere numbers can mess up the true facts. You made excellent points, especially the remark about child mortality in other countries. If you read this story and decide to move based on their info, then you'd be heading for Venezuela before you'd come here (yeah, right).
I found this part of the report interesting.
Britain and the US were also found to have the worst rankings in terms of children's relationships with their families and peers.
Unicef noted the sensitivity of this field, but said "at the statistical level, there is evidence to associate growing up in single-parent families and stepfamilies with greater risk to well-being," including dropping out of school, leaving home early, poorer health and low pay.
The US, Britain and Sweden had the highest proportion of children living in single-parent families, while Italy, Greece and Spain had the lowest.
I’m clearly having brain-to-keyboard issues today :o/
I almost can't bear it,driving to work each day in my C-Class Mercedes. Coming home to my 4 bedroom house. This place is horrible! Oh the humanity!
Oops, my bad. I'm still trying to master the English language.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.